You are Here: Home

# religious puzzle... watch

1. (Original post by Linda)
How I wish I studied maths...

Oh well, back to the problem of God, take a look at this argument (Russel beleived this, at least for a while).

1. God is that of which none greater can be conceived (definition of God).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. For any x and for any y, if x is only in the mind and y is in reality, then y is greater than x.
4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God, perhaps something just like Him except that it is thought to exist in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something greater than God.
6. Hence, God exists in reality.
why point no 3? prove it!
2. (Original post by Linda)
How I wish I studied maths...

Oh well, back to the problem of God, take a look at this argument (Russel beleived this, at least for a while).

1. God is that of which none greater can be conceived (definition of God).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. For any x and for any y, if x is only in the mind and y is in reality, then y is greater than x.
4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God, perhaps something just like Him except that it is thought to exist in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something greater than God.
6. Hence, God exists in reality.
The problem in this case is that greater might not be a transverse relation. A transverse relation is one for which:
if A > B and B > C
then A > C

However, there are quite a few examples where this is not the case. Conisdder a poll where people are allowed to list different politicians (ABC) in the order of preferance. Lets say the results are like this

30% list A > B > C
30% list B > C > A
30% list C > A > B

Now, lets analyse the data. First we see that a majority of 60% of the population prefer A in front of B. Also, a majority of 60% prefer B in front of C. Does this mean that a majority prefer A in front of C?

Nope! A majority of 60% prefer C in front of A !!!!

This is a typical example of a non-transverse relation. Using this example together with others, it has been shown that no perfectly fair voting system can ever be designed. Thus there is no general way to decide which politician, among an infinite set of candidates, should be president, provided that the elections should be fair.

Now, conisdder the same problem applied to god. If we have an infinite number of objects or concepts which we wish to determine if they are god or not. Then there is no general objective way to decide which object is god, if god is defined as being what is the greatest.
3. (Original post by Linda)
How I wish I studied maths...

Oh well, back to the problem of God, take a look at this argument (Russel beleived this, at least for a while).

1. God is that of which none greater can be conceived (definition of God).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. For any x and for any y, if x is only in the mind and y is in reality, then y is greater than x.
4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God, perhaps something just like Him except that it is thought to exist in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something greater than God.
6. Hence, God exists in reality.

existence isn't a attribute hence point 4 doesnt make sense, making argument useless.
4. (Original post by Linda)
1. God is that of which none greater can be conceived (definition of God).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. For any x and for any y, if x is only in the mind and y is in reality, then y is greater than x.
4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God, perhaps something just like Him except that it is thought to exist in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something greater than God.
6. Hence, God exists in reality.
Huh? Just because God exists in our minds doesn't mean he exists in reality, surely?
5. (Original post by Tek)
Huh? Just because God exists in our minds doesn't mean he exists in reality, surely?
The idea is that since god is defined as being perfect he must exist, cus otherwise he would not be perfect.
6. (Original post by Jonatan)
The idea is that since god is defined as being perfect he must exist, cus otherwise he would not be perfect.

Or... he just wouldn't exist...?
Or... he just wouldn't exist...?
If he doesnt exist he isnt perfect, and the definition of god was what is perfect. Thus he must exist.
8. Jin&Jonatan
yes, that is how russell refuted it as well at age 21 for only to dismiss his own refutal later in life... have not been able to grasp why yet...

the most famous refutal would probably be Kant's "existence is not a predicate" in his critique of pure reason... Oh well, I was more interested in seeing arguments for, not against...

Btw, can't we have the debate on "Does God exist" on Wednesday? I'd be happy to defend that he does, just for the sport of it.
9. (Original post by Jonatan)
The idea is that since god is defined as being perfect he must exist, cus otherwise he would not be perfect.
Why is he defined as being perfect? Is there any evidence for this whatsoever?
10. (Original post by corey)
existence isn't a attribute hence point 4 doesnt make sense, making argument useless.
You are indeed correct, #4 is the only way to go if you want to prove the argument useless, instead of just dismissing the whole thing (just started reading Kant, and I'm loving it).
11. (Original post by Linda)
You are indeed correct, #4 is the only way to go if you want to prove the argument useless, instead of just dismissing the whole thing (just started reading Kant, and I'm loving it).
Linda

Sure, I could discuss virtually anything, except a definition (which was pretty much what Jin wanted to discuss).
12. (Original post by Linda)
You are indeed correct, #4 is the only way to go if you want to prove the argument useless, instead of just dismissing the whole thing (just started reading Kant, and I'm loving it).
I disagree, you could argue that "perfect" is not a well defined property.
13. (Original post by Jonatan)
I disagree, you could argue that "perfect" is not a well defined property.
ah, yes, the infamous "perfect island" refutal... It was disproved, hold on, let me find it...
14. Linda!

Kant is so difficult, i swear he must of done it delibertaly to confuse students of the future! Kant is definetly one of my favourite people so far with the little stuff I have done on philosophy, his reasoning is pretty good must of the time.

Just as an analogy for people; (i forget which guy did this - its called dreamboat)

I put an ad into a magazine for a girl, 20 years old, loves sex, men, banjos, football and eating from a roadside truck.

If I add onto my description and exists it does not add anything to the description, thus existence is not a predicate and a God in reality also is not greater than a God in the mind.
15. (Original post by Linda)
ah, yes, the infamous "perfect island" refutal... It was disproved, hold on, let me find it...
Im not denying the existance of something perfect, im just saying that the perfection is not a well defined objective concept, and thus it cannot be used in a logicall argument.
16. (Original post by corey)
Linda!
If I add onto my description and exists it does not add anything to the description, thus existence is not a predicate and a God in reality also is not greater than a God in the mind.
This is a subjective claim, and deals with teh definition of perfect. If you considder something to be perfect only when it exist in reality, then it must certainly exist if it is perfect. What you are saying is basicly that something can be perfect without existing in reality. What you are really saying is that perfection does not imply existance, yet not everyone agree on this.
17. yes, fair enough, what are your views of situations where existence makes something more perfect? (or have i missed the point )
18. (Original post by Jonatan)
Im not denying the existance of something perfect, im just saying that the perfection is not a well defined objective concept, and thus it cannot be used in a logicall argument.
you could indeed also say that the argument is referencial, or rather that it commits the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (Whitehead was it? who proposed this I mean?), which occurs when a property is taken as an instance of itself. The argument is circular, because by both definition and conclusion, God exists. the argument reverses the natural order of knowledge by arguing from God's nature to His existence, rather than the other way around. "logical possibility is not enough to establish real possibility, it is properties, not beings, which exist, so to say that a being exists necessarily runs contrary to logical syntax", etc... Yeah, Kant is really getting to me...
19. God is everything, therefore we are all God. See, God has the power to do ANYTHING, meaning making himself his own worst enemy (we are God, when we FEAR, we FEAR ourself because as being God, God is also the knife we may FEAR going through our head which is also God).

The soul exists as a question. Not, "I am what I am" (which is also true), but difference comes in, "I am. What am I?"

When God questions his power, he has already created the idea (everything is an IDEA--the physical world is the product of it; or a conditioned state of creation) of being less than himself, or not knowing himself or everything, and therefore denouncing his omniscience or whatever that's called.

Our thoughts exist as question--this is what the physical world is. It's a huge question. When we think we question, wonder, etc. This is why the physical world is also the product of an idea, because when you question truth, you put a limit on it (God questioning God is power questioning power, and therefore a limit, as the question itself is lack of). This is why the physical world is able to exist with itself, because it's a positive ions (truth) and negative ions (lack of).

Our souls are individuality; experience. If I try to lift a rock and I can't, the situation exists as "God trying to life God". If I can't lift the rock, I have already done the "impossible". Everything is possible, including impossible. You're going on the idea that God thinks as a person does. When you focus your attention on your hands feeling a table, what is that attention? It isn't any kind of thought...but you do put attention to it. This is your "spirit" -- which functions even when you can't think at all, or feel, or have a body to experience life.

I feel because my body feels...bot because I want to or don't want to--or because I "make a choice" not to or not to. My mind is just a bunch of ********.

ya I'm tryin to explain this **** in ur geekiest way of thinking so u can understand it, the truth is i dont really give a **** tho there's always some idiot who will rationalize all logic because he imagine a paradox without first acknowleding everything is one and the same; a difference doesn't make u any less. difference is an illusion to truth; but illusions are truthful in that they really exist, but distort the main purpose
it's hard for people to understand a "purpose" when they're using their ego to think all the time...we arent the voice in our head, we are the empty by distinct function behind it all--that which feels ur ass touching ur chair, that which hears ur thoughts and focuses on them or on something else, which chooses to move ur arm here or there, or chooses to think this or that. wut u have to do is learn to focus on the things u really want bcuz the more u focus on wut u want the more ull realize anything is possible, but a focus is limitation. u r a focus; a spirit whether u think or not, or feel, or dont feel
20. I'm tryin to explain this **** in ur geekiest way of thinking so u can understand it
You have lots of friends, don't you?

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 8, 2004
Today on TSR

### He lied about his age

Thought he was 19... really he's 14

Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines